Posted by bad_luck on 11/6/2012 5:00:00 PM (view original):Cost and benefit. How many fraudulent votes do we have evidence of? Should we spend a shitload of time, money, and effort to combat a problem that doesn't exist?

How do you know it doesn't exist? Is is possible that it's so easy to commit and get away with that practically nobody gets caught doing it?

Oregonians passed a referendum in 1998 to institute the vote-by-mail system – with almost 70 percent approval.

Secretary Brown rejects the criticism that mail-in ballots diminish the sense of civic engagement people may feel standing in line with their fellow citizens on Election Day. She says Oregonians have block parties and talk to their neighbors; issues are discussed in churches and synagogues.

“Civic engagement is much more meaningful and expansive when you have a ballot in hand for 2-1/2 weeks,” Brown says. “Election Day is not just one day – it’s several.”

Another criticism of mail-in ballots is that there is more opportunity for voter fraud. Since 2000, 15 million ballots have been cast by mail in Oregon, but there have been only nine convictions of voter fraud, Brown says. The state takes extensive measures to ensure that ballots are secure: each envelope has a unique barcode, election officials verify every signature, and there are cameras in every election office to monitor the counting. People can also check online to make sure their ballot was counted.

So nine people have been caught and convicted? How many people committed voter fraud via mail-in voting but were not caught?

Are people in other areas of the country prohibited from gathering and discussing the election in groups if they don't have a ballot in their hand?

And in which scenario do you think it's easier to commit and get away with voter fraud: via absentee ballot, or in person with valid photo ID?

Since most states don't require ID to vote in person, it's easier to commit fraud in person.

If it doesn't concern you that it's easy to vote illegally, then you don't deserve the benefits of the sacrifices Mike's alluding to. You gotta have ID for kinds of things, but it's only "discriminatory" when it comes to voting. It's twisted logic, if it's even logic at all.

Lefties compain about special interests influencing politics, but don't care if illegal voters control who gets in? How the he** does that make sense?